Has anyone else noticed a huge amount of vignetting when using the 70-200mm f2.8 Nikkor on the D3. It is noticeable through the viewfinder and changes when zooming. On an even toned shot it is about a stop darker in the corners. It this just my lens or should it go back to nikon for a look see?
After writing the above, I decided to do a little experiment. I stood on my front steps and shot a photo of the house across the street with my D3 and 70-200 at f/2.8. I set the camera for RAW+JPEG. Then I processed the NEF image in Photoshop CS3. The results are shown below. The first image is the JPEG from the camera, the second the NEF as rendered by CS3. While both show some corner fall-off, the fall-off in the CS3 image is dramatically more.
I also verified that Capture NX produces an image from the NEF that is identical to the out-of-camera JPEG, as you would expect.
What this shows is that when Nikon processes images shot with a D3 and 70-200 (or 80-200, I guess), it is applying correction for this problem, whether the processing is happening in the D3 or externally in Capture NX or View NX.
That is really interesting. Is that why Nikon NX is "free with the D3 and D300" It would be interesting to see what a D3 NEF looks in Nikon Capture. Capture 4.4.3 will not open a D80 or D40 NEF so most likely it will not open a D3 NEF file. What does the NEF look like in CS3 before the adjustments? How about D3 NEF in Photoshop 7?
Well it pretty much looks the same to me. Below are two examples of the D3-70-200 combo, shot as NEF and processed in capture and camera raw. Now this lens has gone from one of my favourites to well, I'm not sure what to do with it now...
>Has anyone else noticed a huge amount of vignetting when >using the 70-200mm f2.8 Nikkor on the D3. It is noticeable >through the viewfinder and changes when zooming. On an even >toned shot it is about a stop darker in the corners. It this >just my lens or should it go back to nikon for a look see? > >Cheers > >Craig
I have not seen hardly any actual light fall-off in this lens since shooting thousands of pictures with the 70-200 wide open on my D3 since the beginning of December. Its an easy fix if you find it. This lens is still one of my favorites.
As problems go, it's certainly not a serious one. Still, Nikon considered it important enough to specifically correct for it in their software. I think the important thing for users of this combination to understand is that they may get different light fall-off results depending on whether they process the NEF files with Nikon software or with other programs.
>As problems go, it's certainly not a serious one. Still, >Nikon considered it important enough to specifically correct >for it in their software. I think the important thing for >users of this combination to understand is that they may get >different light fall-off results depending on whether they >process the NEF files with Nikon software or with other >programs. > >
Isn't it great that it can be easily corrected now, not like film. Even if you process raw files in non-Nikon software the ability to correct light fall-off in the corners (vignetting) is possible and easy in most, if not all, photo software.
If you follow the link(s) I provided above you will learn that Canon had a pronounced problem with light fall-off in the 5D. Apparently, with full sized sensors, the existing lenses, and the lens' mount used it is the nature of the beast. With cropped, or smaller sensors, optical vignetting was not an issue like it is now with the introduction of the D3. The link I provided was basically started with observing vignetting in posted pictures from the new 24-70. In that OP's pictures the vignetting was really pronounced in my opinion for a new lens that had been developed for the FX sensor. Since then I have purchased a 24-70 and it also has a small amount of light fall-off wide open.
What concerned me in this thread was a poster's comment that one of his favorite lens had been degraded as a result of this phenomena. I was very concerned when I first learned of this problem with the 70-200, but upon learning the cause and the ability to fix a very small minority of the photos with vignetting that this lens would produce (especially since the problem only exists at wide apertures and I normally shot this way) I have not thought any less of this lens.
My first reaction was, "is it the lens or the D3? Can it be fixed?" The answer was both, and it is an easy fix.
I did some tests against the side of my house in good light a couple of weeks ago. There is clearly vignetting with the D3/70-200 at F/5.6 and wider. The wider I went, the worse it got. But I have not shot many (any?) real-world shots with my 70-200 on my D3.
>Hi, >the falloff is clearly there, although it is eay to fix in >software. > >Hopefully the recent rumors about a 70-210/2.8 VR II >"Nano" at the Beijing olympics turn out to be true, >one shouldn't need to fix vignetting with software on a >pro-caliber $1500+ lens.
If you followed the links above you would have seen that vignetting can appear in the 24-70 just released, which is a "pro-caliber $1500+ lens" (I have notice slight vignetting on my copy when wide open, but not as pronounced on the copy that there is a link to). Whether this will show up in an updated 70-200 (a "pro-caliber $1500+ lens")is yet to be seen.
- is inevitable with many lenses because digital sensors cannot handle light at a low angle as effectively as film. Nikon have done a good job with the D3 by making the pixel sites larger as a percentage of occupied space than previous FF cameras. How much vignetting shows depends in part on the subject. This one with the 70-200 at 200 f5.6 seems good to me
>none of the testing I did was with filters on the lens. You >would need to stack a lot of filter for them to appear on a >tele zoom. > >In regards to the previous post about angle of light and >digital sensors, the vignetting is visible in the viewfinder >with a D3 so it is caused by the optics not a function of the >sensor.
An interesting pre-D3 article by Digital Darrell that explains light fall-off and the angle of light causing this as a result of the image circle's coverage on the sensor.
>an interesting article and all true but as the vignetting is very obvious in the viewfinder and is therefore a function of the optics It is a function of the camera optics rather than the lens. A focus screen has to be "OK" with more than 100 Nikon lenses, and also has to deal with a lot of light from the center of the image being diverted at the main mirror to the AF module in the mirror box base. To avoid the viewfinder looking dark in the center the focus screen concentrates some of the light in the corners towards the center to even things up. The compromises mean the D3 screen is AI with some lenses (like the 24-70) and "OK" as in some obvious extreme corner shading with the 70-200. In my testing it did not show up to anything like the same extent in pictures. Digressing it is common to get some "mirror cut off" (a slice of the viewfinder image missing) with lenses of about 600mm and longer mainly because the mirror position is furthest from the sensor or film at the bottom of the mirror box and the lens flange to sensor distance limits the maximum mirror size.
Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.
I just purchased D3 and upgraded my 80-200 lens to AF-S VR 70-200 f/2.8 last week. I noticed vignetting immediately, and started doing some investigation and then found this thread. Here is an image taken today with the lens wide open and D3 body. It's the surface of a pond in dense fog. You will see the problem is profound. I just sent Nikon support a question on this with the image file. I purchased the body and lens from B&H. They have not heard anything about this...